You pay Dr. Jason Jeffrey Jones for his time and labor, so that he produces a public, peer review report.
Peer review.Peer review is a component of the scientific process. An expert evaluates another's research. The best peer reviews provide constructive criticism to the authors so that they can improve their process and presentation.
Report. In practice, many peer reviews are dashed-off, first impression, near-stream-of-consciousness ramblings. The audience is an editor, and the goal is to signal in-group versus out-group status. In contrast, Dr. Jones will provide a structured report. The audience is the author and interested third-party readers.
Public. Most peer review comes from anonymous reviewers and is only seen by a few individuals. That is a shame. Experts' evaluations likely contain hard-won world knowledge and the wisdom of long experience. Better to make peer review publicly available. Weak critiques and gatekeeping will be exposed and less prevalent. Anyone and everyone may benefit from thoughtful, useful evaluations that share knowledge and experience.
More concretely, you pay Dr. Jones:
$1 for a half-day evaluation and publicly posted review document.*
$2 for a full-day evaluation and publicly posted review document.*
* Prices double with every completed paid review until demand and supply reach equilibrium.
Who are you?
I am a husband and father, loved by many. Wait, that's not what you're looking for.
Dr. Jason Jeffrey Jones is a computational social scientist whose expertise includes online experiments, social networks, high-throughput text analysis and machine learning. He is interested in humans’ perceptions of themselves and the developing role of artificial intelligence in society.
Dr. Jones has studied the effectiveness of virtual reality in evoking empathy, the dynamics of gender stereotypes in language over decades and temporal trends in personally expressed identity.
Dr. Jones' research is published in numerous peer reviewed journals and has been cited thousands of times. His work has been discussed in the New York Times, The Atlantic, Sports Illustrated and the Washington Post.
How does it work?
You prepare a manuscript to be reviewed and post it in a publicly accessible place.The version I review must be publicly available in the interest of open science and accountability (yours and mine).
Use the order form to purchase a half- or full-day review.You must pay the full fee in advance. No refunds.
I will contact you and tell you the date I have scheduled the review.I have time and motivation for one review per week. Wait time will depend upon demand.
I will post my peer review report to this website the day after I complete my evaluation.My report will carry a CC0 license - meaning anyone can use it any way they wish. You, your editor, your audience, your employer, whoever will now possess my evaluation of your work.
Where are these reviews?
My completed reviews primarily live here on jasonjones.ninja, publicly accessible with no ads or registration.
I will post a copy of each review to TODO repository, so that a larger, better-funded third-party organization also maintains an archive.
Why should I pay for something I can get for free?
It has been my experience receiving free reviews that you get what you pay for.
Slow. A fast peer review process takes three weeks. More typical wait time is months. Most of that time is reviewer procrastination - not meticulous review. The typical peer reviewer spends fivehours on a manuscript.
Bad. Norms are that peer reviews are confidential. That means poor quality reviews occur, receive no feedback and waste the time of authors and editors. Ask any academic if they have a story about a low quality review.
In the paid, public peer review model, reviewers (me, in this case) are incentivized to produce good reviews quickly. If your reviews are too bad or too slow, payers will find better providers.
Isn't this evil?
I don't think so. I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Inpired by: The 450 Movement Date Me Docs
Years of time-wasting reviews